1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. The petitioners are members of the Pakistan Seamen's Union registered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance). As a result of compromise arrived at between the contesting parties in the Appeal No. 4/81, in which the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 figured as respondents, the Sind Labour Court directed elections of the office-bearers of the Union to be held under the supervision of the Registrar (respondent No. 1). The said elections were held on 3-4-1982.
2. It is alleged that the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 committed illegalities and indulged in all sorts of malpractices in the elections with the active support and connivance of the Registrar, who on his part, did not comply with the directions of the Labour Court by supervising the elections personally.
3. Being dissatisfied with the results of the elections, the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 together with two- others challenged the said elections by their application dated 20-4-82 under section 8(7) of the said Ordinance in the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi. In the meantime the Registrar accepted the elections and registered the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 as new office-bearers, of the Union. The petitioners made a representation (dated 21-6-82) to the Registrar, bringing to his notice certain patent illegalities in the constitution of the Union. It was prayed in the representation that action be taken against the Union and its office-bearers under section 10(I)(2) of the said Ordinance and further Khalil-ur-Rehman's (respondent No. 2) be prosecuted for wilful wrong statement and manipulations in the documents or in the alternative the petitioners be authorized to lodge complaint under sec--tion 13(b) of the said Ordinance in respect of the violations thereof.
4. The Registrar by his letter dated 30-6-82 informed the petitioners that their allegations being chiefly in relation to the conduct .Of the office --bearers of the Union, the extreme action of moving the Labour Court for cancellation of the registration of the Union was not called for. He further pointed out in the letter that if the members felt that the office bearers including the General Secretary were not discharging their functions properly, they had remedy open to them under clauses 8 and 12 of the constitution of the Union. As for prosecuted on of the office-bearers for violations of the said Ordinance the Registrar made clear to the petitioners that they or for that matter any one else could lodge complaint in the Labour Court directly and no authorization was needed for the purpose. As the petitioners were unsatisfied with this reply, they invoked the intervention of this Court on writ side. Their prayer is that inter alia, the letter of the Registrar be declared as illegal and of no lawful effect and further that the provisions of Union's constitution as contained in Articles 10(c) and 10(e) being derogatory of and inconsistent with section 7(1)(j) of the said Ordinance, be declared as illegal.
5. I have heard the respective view points presented by the learned counsel for the parties. So far the petitioners are concerned, the stand taken on their behalf was highlighted by their counsel Mr. Bilal Ahmed Khawaja. He submitted that even though it was brought to the notice of the Registrar that the constitution of the Union suffered from the contradictions and was repugnant, in some respects, to the provisions of the said Ordinance, he took no steps to move the Labour Court for cancellation of the Union's registration. In the opinion of the learned counsel the Registrar failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. In order to understand how and in what circumstances the Registrar is required to move the Labour Court for cancellation of registration of the Union, it would be useful to reproduce section 10 of the said Ordinance: "10.-(1) The registration of a trade union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court so directs upon a complaint in writing made by the Registrar that the trade union has--
(i) contravened, or has been registered in contravention of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the rules; or
(ii) contravened any of the provisions of its constitution; or (i.e) made in its constitution any provision which is inconsistent with this Ordinance or the rules.
(2) Where any person who is disqualified under section 7-A from being elected as, or from being, an Officer of a trade union is elected as an Officer of a registered trade union, the registration of that trade union shall be cancelled if the Labour Court upon a complaint in writing made in this behalf by the Registrar, so directs.
(3) The registration of a trade union shall be cancelled by the Registrar if, after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, he finds that such trade union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist."
6. It would appear from the above provisions of the law that registration of Union can be .Cancelled either by Labour Court on a complaint of the Registrar or by the Registrar himself if he is satisfied that the Trade Union has dissolved itself or has ceased to exist. In the instant case the petitioner' allegations are that in view of clauses (c) and (e) of Article 10 of the Union' constitution being inconsistent with section 7(1)(j) of the said Ordinance, the Registrar was required to move the Labour Court for cancellation of the registration of the Union. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that whereas section 7(1)(j) of the said Ordinance requires that the manner of election of Officers by the general body of the trade union is to -be reflected in the constitution of the Union, in the instant case the Union's constitution as per clauses (c) and (e) of Article 1.0 thereof provides for appointment of General Secretary and Finance Secretary who are Officers of the Union by nomination. He, therefore, argued that the constitution of the Union being repugnant to the provisions of the said Ordinance, the registration of the Union is bad in law and has got to be cancelled. The learned counsel however conceded that in the opening paragraph of Article 10 of the Union's constitution, it is clearly provided that all Officers of the Union including the General Secretary and Finance Secretary shall be elected at a general body meeting. This provision is in consonance with and satisfies the requirements of section 7(l)(j) of the said Ordinance. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the constitution of the Union is not in accordance with the legal requirements. The clauses (c) and (e) of Article 10 can, in presence of a clear cut provision referred to above the safety ignored. In view of this position the Registrar had absolute--ly no justification to initiate action for cancellation of the Union's registration. .Even 9therwise the question of moving the Labour Court for cancellation of the registration was entirely within the discretion of the Registrar. The stand taken by them vis-a-vis the petitioner's demand for cancellation of the Union's registration is reflected both in his impugned letter and the parawise comments submitted by him to this Court.
7. According to him the petitioner's allegations were mainly directed against the office-bearers and were also of general nature and, therefore, extreme action of cancellation of registration of the'
8. Union was not called for. His reply to this effect clearly shows that he was not satisfied that he had enough material to warrant taking the requisite action.
9. Punjab Labour Court (1977 PLC 1). It was observed by Gul Muhammad Khan, J. Of Lahore High Court:- "11. As regards the objection to the constitution being repugnant to certain rules, the only authority that has to take note of it, is the Registrar who can lodge a complaint to the Labour Court under section 10. There is no provision for the Labour Court to take up the issue suo molu. There is also nothing in the law or the rules empower--ing the Labour Court to direct the Registrar to lodge a complaint before it."
10. Reliance has also been placed on the unreported decision of this Court in Beach Luxury Hotel Employees Trade Union v. The Third Sind Labour Court and others (C. P. No. 25/77), decided on 19- 12-78. The relevant passage of the judgment for the purpose of this case is reproduced below:- , "The Registrar has complete discretion in law whether to ask for a direction from the Labour Court under section 10 of the Ordinance and he cannot be compelled to make an application under section 10 after every breach of the Ordinance or the rules by a Union The above authorities clearly support the view that it is for the Registrar to decide in his discretion if the Court be moved or not far cancellation/B of the Union's registration. As pointed out above there is no legal provision under which the Registrar can be obliged for taking such action.
11. Further prayer made by the petitioners in their representation was that action be taken against Khalil-ur-Rehman's (respondent No. 2) and other office --bearers for violation of the Law/rules committed by them or in the alternative they may, be authorized to do the needful. The Registrar's answer to this demand was that no authorization was needed for bringing the office-bearers to book for any violations committed by them and it was open to the petitioner or for that matter any one else to initiate action under section 13(b) without his intervention. The Registrar has taken the same stand even in the parawise comments submitted by him in this Court. He has however added in the comments that as a matter of fact he never refused to take action against the office- bearers but as the whole record relating to the controversy was called by the Labour Court in the case started on the petitioners' own application under section 8(7) of the said Ordinance he was prevented from doing so.
12. Before going into the legal aspect of this demand, it is to be seen what violations were committed by the office-bearers which the petitioners wanted to be punished. A careful perusal of the representation would reveal that the allegations made in this connection are not only vague but are also without any force. For example the allegations with regard to Khalil-ur-Rehman's is not clear how he is guilty of making false statement or how he has misled the petitioners to become members of illegally constituted Union. It has already been held that the petitioners' apprehension that the Union's constitution is in conflict with the provisions of the said Ordinance is without.
13. Foundation. Consequently to say that office-bearers or members of the Union are office-bearers and members of the illegally constituted Union is not correct. Moreover so long the Labour Court has not cancelled the registration of the Union, it cannot be called as illegally constituted Union C and no action can be taken on that ground. If the petitioners reference is to the alleged mal- practices that are said to have been committed in the office-bearers' elections, that grievance of the petitioners is already before the Labour Court and will be resolved in due course of time. Until then no one can be held liable nor any specific wrong doing can be attributed to any person. The petitioners will have to await the verdict of the Labour Court with regard to the dispute of elections.
14. It may further be noted the Registrar has not totally refused to investigate the violations, if any, committed by the office-bearers. As stated by him, he was prevented from doing so because the whole record relating to the dispute had been summoned by the Labour Court and was pending before that Court. This shows that if at any subsequent stage need arose, he would not hesitate to look into the petitioners' complaint and would thoroughly investigate it in order to provide due relief to them. Thus, the petitioners would be free to approach the Registrar whenever necessary. And if they were able to convince him for taking any action, there appears no reason why he should not toke such action: In view of this position I need not record finding oil the point whether section 13(b) of the said Ordinance is attracted in this case and if so, whether under that section it is necessary to obtain the authorization from the Registrar for lodging any complaint in respect of commission of any offence.
15. Subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs, the petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs. With dismissal of the main petition, the Application No. 326/82 becomes infructuous and is dismissed as such.